The NCAA's rules & bylaws are on Michigan's side
- Introduction/High-Level Takeaways
The NCAA might not be on Michigan’s side when it comes to the current allegations about sign stealing, but its rules and bylaws are. This diary is about to get long, so here are the high-level takeaways:
- There is no rule against sign stealing as such.
- The rule that forbids recording an opponent’s signals only applies to a team when it’s on a field for a game.
- A football program can hire third parties to scout future opponents in person.
- Seth and the poster who goes by Ghost of Fritz Crisler found the most important points below.
Okay, let’s go through Michigan’s supposed rules violations.
- The Rule that Categorically Prohibits Sign Stealing
There is no such rule. You can steal signs in at least some circumstances.
- Rule 1-11-h of the NCAA Football 2023 Rules Book
It says this:
Any attempt to record, either through audio or video means, any signals given by an opposing player, coach or other team personnel is prohibited.
That seems cut and dried, but it cannot be read alone. As a preliminary matter, it’s worth noting that Rule 1-11-h is part of Rule 1, which is titled The Game, Field, Players, and Equipment. Next, per Rule 1-6-b, the Rules Book—the entire thing—applies to the following:
Everyone in the team area, players, substitutes, replaced players, coaches, athletics trainers, cheerleaders, band members, mascots [!], public-address announcers, audio/video/lighting system operators, and other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions.
In case there is any confusion about what the above means by “the teams,” Rule 1-1-1-a tells us that “(t)he game shall be played between two teams of not more than 11 players each…” So, we’re talking about the two teams that are playing a given game, not all D-1 football teams everywhere. And, for the rules to apply to a person, that person must be affiliated with the teams playing the game and in the “team area.”
What is the “team area”? Rule 1-2-4-a defines it as being “(o)n each side of the field” in the back of a “limit line” (I won’t subject you to that definition) and between the 20-yard lines. The major point is that it is to the sides of a football field where the two teams play. Thus, to be subject to Rule 1-11-h, you have to be on the side of a field. People who are watching games from the stands are not that.
- 2022-2023 NCAA Division 1 Manual Bylaw 11.6.1
Okay, let’s move onto the big one. Bylaw 11.6.1 says this:
Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2 [these two exceptions aren’t relevant].
We don’t have the nice, clean explanation of whom the Bylaws apply to that we had in the Football Rules Book. But Article 11 of the Bylaws, of which 11.6.1 is a part, is titled Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel. More, in Bylaw 11.1.1, we’re told that “Institutional staff members found in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action…” Also, we have common sense to tell us that the NCAA cannot mean 11.6.1 to apply to all humans everywhere. If nothing else, the average fan does not have “future opponents.” It seems safe to say, then, that the rule applies on its face to employees of athletic departments (or schools, if you like). If you think there is ambiguity there, however, we go to our next point.
And here is where we encounter what Ghost of Fritz found and the biggest point of confusion: typically, we’d be correct to think that you cannot absolve yourself of punishment for a prohibited act by paying someone else to do it. Agency liability and criminal conspiracy charges come to mind. But that logic just doesn’t seem to apply here.
Prior to August 2013, Bylaw 11.6.1 prohibited schools from off-campus, in-person scouting of opponents for football, basketball, and women’s volleyball—but not for other sports. This was balanced out to some extent thanks to then-Bylaw 11.6.2, which said that football, basketball, and women’s volleyball enjoyed a carve-out from the following prohibition:
…a member institution shall not pay or permit the payment of expenses incurred by its athletics department staff members or representatives (including professional scouting services) to scout its opponents or individuals who represent its opponents…
In other words, you couldn’t scout an opponent in person for your football, basketball, and women’s volleyball teams, but you could pay “representatives” to scout opponents for those sports.
Then, in August 2013, the NCAA changed the rule and prohibited off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) for all sports but balanced that by completely discarding the prohibition against paying for scouting. In doing so, it published the following rationale:
In the interest of simplicity and consistency, it is appropriate for one rule regarding scouting to apply to all sports. In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public.
There is only one reasonable interpretation of what happened in August 2013 when the rule was changed: schools could pay for scouting services for football before the rule changed and can still do so now (the rule hasn’t been amended since). It would make absolutely no sense to repeal the rule that banned payment for scouting for most non-football sports as a way of banning payment for scouting for football. The explicit rationale for the rule change also wouldn’t make sense. Accordingly, schools can pay third parties to scout opponents.
Let me say this in a different way: there is only ambiguity in 11.6.1 if you’re not convinced by its text that it only applies to school employees. And the legislative history of the rule makes clear that you should be convinced of that. As seen in 11.6.1 prior to August 2013, the NCAA knew what to say to ban third-party scouting. And, rather than applying that to football, the NCAA did away with that ban for all sports.
- The Rule Against Hiring Third Parties to Scout & Record Opponents in Person to Steal Signs
You can steal signs. You can hire third parties to scout opponents in person. You can record opponents’ signals if you’re not on a football field playing against them. There is no rule suggesting that combining these things makes them a collective rules violation.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:17 AM ^
Winner, winner, B.F. Skinner!
October 27th, 2023 at 4:45 PM ^
Adding my post to the board version of Erik's post to the diaries thread.....
As OP Erik cites my posts from a different thread I am going to chime in on this thread too.
1. Erik's OP gets it basically correct, but there is one important point that he leaves out (more on that below).
2. Bottom Line: Nothing in current NCAA rules prohibits an institution from paying 3rd parties to record future opponent games (including sidelines).
3. The legislative history of 11.6 is important here. That history shows that the NCAA switched the way they wanted to regulate an institution studying future opponents.
Pre-2013 Rule 11.6 regulated and mostly banned (with small exceptions) paying third parties to record video of future opponents. So the pre-2013 rules regulating how institutions study future opponents took a 'do not pay 3rd parties for video recordings' approach (with narrow exceptions).
But in 2013 the NCAA repealed that version of the rule and replaced it with an entirely different regulatory approach--new Rule 11.6 which bans in-person scouting. As Erik points out, the 2013 amendment to Rule 11.6 got rid of the ban on paying 3rd parties for recordings/videos of future opponents. Thus, the 2013 to today approach to regulating how teams study opponents takes a 'do not in-person scout' approach.
5. But here is the important point that Erik does not seem to sufficiently highlight: A crucial piece of this is the fact that the NCAA rules have treated and thought of 'video/recordings' as a completely different thing than 'scouting.' The NCAA rules themselves speak of 'recording' versus 'scouting' as entirely different phenomenon.
Sooo many in the media have wrongly assumed that 'recording' and 'scouting' are just synonyms. They have essentially said 'well Rule 11.6 bans in-person scouting of future opponents and...it appears that Stalions arranged just that thing.'
No. Stalions did not arrange for 3rd parties to do in-person scouting. He instead arranged for 3rd parties to do in-person recordings of the games of future opponents. And the NCAA rules themselves treat these as very different things.
They dudes Stalions bought tickets for were NOT scouts. They were guys with iPhones recording games. They were recorders. They would not have the first clue on how to scout an opponent. And, of course, this is crucial because the NCAA got rid of its ban on paying for 3rd party recording and replaced it with a ban on in-person scouting.
So the legal fight should really center on in-person 'scouting' (prohibited) versus 3rd party 'recording' (formerly prohibited but no longer prohibited).
Keep in mind the bigger picture. The NCAA wanted to have rules on how teams study future opponents. And they wanted such rules mostly to allow lower budget programs and ADs to be able to study future opponents more or less as much and as well as the big budget ADs/programs.
Pre-2013 the NCAA, therefore, banned paying 3rd parties for game video (with limited exceptions). But starting in 2013 they got rid of that regulatory approach and switched to a different approach: ban in-person scouting.
And they even told us why they made this switch in the explanatory notes to the 2013 change: "In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public." In other words, by 2013 game video is cheap and everywhere, so it makes no sense to ban paying 3rd parties for it anymore. OTOH, in-person scouting can be more costly, and allowing that really could be a disadvantage for low budget ADs/programs
October 30th, 2023 at 12:01 PM ^
I have some questions about your post and extensive back and forth about the by laws in the 2013 version vs the current one.
I see the part about post season video in the 11.6.1.2 rule. Are there other sections you are referring to when you say they treat video and scouting as different? Or is on the strength of the fact that they draw a distinction only here?
Also, what do you think of the counter argument that them omitting the injunction on 3rd party video while in the explanation saying its widely available supports it not being allowed? IN other words yes its wildly available so no one should need to go take video?
October 30th, 2023 at 2:39 PM ^
Rule 11.6 has existed for decades.
Prior versions of the rule specifically address both scouting and recording/video (paying a 3rd party for video of future opponents' games). Thus, the very text of the various versions of 11.6 over the years has always spoken of and treated 'scouting' as a very different activity than 'recording.'
Additionally, sometimes the NCAA will issue guidance to clarify an existing rule that may have been ambiguous and/or when it amends a rule. For 11.6 this guidance has similarly treated 'scouting' and 'recording' are very different activities.
Though 11.6 has been amended more than once, the most recent relevant amendment was in 2013.
Pre-2013 BOTH in-person scouring of future opponents AND paying a 3rd party to record a future opponents' game--recording--was prohibited (with a narrow exception). Again, scouting and recording were treated NOT as the same thing, but as different things. Plus, in 2013 the NCAA amended 11.6 to REMOVE the prohibition on paying for 3rd party recordings of future opponents' game, thus leaving only the ban on in-person scouting.
Michigan's legal defense should the the following: (1) Stalions acted on his own and (2) it turns out that the very thing he did (compensate 3rd parties for recordings of future opponent games) is NOT prohibited by the current Rule 11.6. Why? Because scouting and paying for game recordings are not the same thing, and Rule 11.6 prohibits only the former, while the NCAA repealed the latter prohibition in 2013.
It makes perfect sense that Rule 11.6 has always conceived of 'scouting' and 'recording' as different activities. The guys Stalions gave tickets to the record games were not scouts. They are not guys that would even know how to scout and were never asked to submit any scouting reports. There were just randos with iPhones. They were recorders.
October 31st, 2023 at 8:35 AM ^
I see and understand all of that. I see 11.6.1.2 that talks about video within rule 11.6 (2013 version). Are there any other statements about video that I am missing? That seems small. And I understand the argument that this constitutes video being treated as something different, however I was wondering if there was more?
November 2nd, 2023 at 12:15 PM ^
So why isn't Brian buying into this? He still has this "well Stallions is guilty" frame of BPONE reference.
Also, we need to convince someone int he press out there to lean into this counter argument.
October 26th, 2023 at 4:46 AM ^
Erik, I love you.
I believe Skip Balas reported that the NCAA is coming to Ann Arbor for a meeting today. Can someone make sure the UM athletic department is aware of this interpretation of the bylaws?
Can you imagine the river of sweet, delicious tears of schadenfreude this would generate in buckeye nation if everything UM is accused of is true and legal according to the convoluted legalese of the NCAA bylaws???
October 26th, 2023 at 6:28 AM ^
Have I just not had my morning coffee yet or is this saying something differently?
…a member institution shall not pay or permit the payment of expenses incurred by its athletics department staff members or representatives (including professional scouting services) to scout its opponents or individuals who represent its opponents…
In other words, you couldn’t scout an opponent in person for your football, basketball, and women’s volleyball teams, but you could pay “representatives” to scout opponents for those sports.
Doesn't that law explicitly state that you cannot (to paraphrase) "pay expenses to athletics department representatives to scout opponents"?
edit: I think I missed that football is explicitly carved out from this right?
October 26th, 2023 at 6:46 AM ^
From what I am reading in the diary, it seems they discarded paying the representatives when they changed the rule in August 2013.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:17 AM ^
I'm having trouble following this. The part in bold above clearly prohibits payment for scouting by representatives. I'm not clear on where the exception for football is, but I'm fine with taking the OP's word on this.
What I don't understand is why this investigation, if it truly is an investigation, is taking place in public. I'm not sure who it serves, other than the media. I am sure who it doesn't serve -- the University of Michigan.
How much something like this negatively impacts the university's overall brand?
I don't know. But enough that I would think someone at the university outside the athletic department should be concerned.
Should other schools be concerned that the NCAA might come after them in the same way?
Absolutely.
Unless there's reason to believe that the value of Ohio State's brand as a university goes up when the value of the University of Michigan's brand goes down (not exactly obvious and almost certainly not dollar for dollar), the member institutions of the NCAA have an interest in investigations being conducted quietly and that any sanctions are handed down with as little fanfare as possible -- the goal should be to try to restore/maintain competitive balance, not to tarnish the image of the athletics program or the university.
It would be really nice if we learn that Michigan along with a number of other schools challenged the NCAA about the way this investigation is being managed -- publicly if necessary -- and pressed them to do what they can to clean up the mess they have created.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:17 AM ^
Simple answer to the second part...people within the NCAA has an axe to grind with Harbaugh.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:16 AM ^
All the changes and modifications make a little more sense when you look at the final rule and see what was struck out and also read the stated rationale.
October 26th, 2023 at 7:18 AM ^
Great summary, you did great work even if the guy who copy/pasted it onto the board will get the credit and points.
October 26th, 2023 at 7:41 AM ^
To be fair, he did cite the OP I his post
October 26th, 2023 at 8:48 AM ^
And this information needs to get out there. It's sad that no one in the media (even ones who may not have a bias) has bothered to actually interpret the NCAA bylaws. Instead, it's easier to make an attention whore grabbing headline to get clicks because everyone already hates us
October 26th, 2023 at 8:01 AM ^
a member institution shall not pay or permit the payment of expenses incurred by its athletics department staff members or representatives (including professional scouting services) to scout its opponents or individuals who represent its opponents…
Your point that this was amended makes sense, so this may end up not mattering, but I read this differently than you did, but also my reading of it would mean Michigan didn't break the rule.
What I read here is that a member institution (Michigan) can not pay the expenses of staff members (Stalions) or representatives for scouting services.
So Stalions is free to pay for scouting services, but the athletic department can't pay him back, that's on him. So my reading is, if Scalions really was behind paying for the operation, he'd be ok under this rule.
Then as you noted, it was changed anyway.
Edit: I read this again and the rule seems almost more loose. It says that the institution cannot pay for or pay the expenses incurred by athletic department staff members or representatives to scout opponents. So the way I read this is anyone could go scout opponents, so long as it's on their own dime. Jim Harbaugh could be in the stands for an Ohio State game vs Notre Dame, so long as he paid to be there himself and Michigan didn't reimburse him.
This carve out would make sense given the 1994 rationale for the rule to begin with. It had nothing to do with competitive advantage, but was a measure added to eliminate costs for programs that didn't want to pay for it. So this is making clear that as long as the institution itself doesn't pay, scouting isn't against the rules.
Maybe I am reading that wrong, and the 2016 Baylor case seems to indicate I am. But then again, maybe they didn't put up much of a defense because they weren't being completely drug through the mud like Michigan is and the penalties were "meh."
October 26th, 2023 at 9:19 AM ^
I think the assumption is that Stallions IS part of the UM staff (and Harbaugh obviously is) doesn't matter if they get paid or not. I think the payment part is for outside representatives.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:07 AM ^
You are close, but not quite there. Before 2013, rule 11.6 had two parts. 11.6.1, which applied to basketball, football, and women's volleyball, barred off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents. OP has argued that this only applied to coaches. This argument rests on 11.6.2, which applied to all other sports and prohibited payment or reimbursement for scouting future opponents by coaches or other third parties. In 2013, the NCAA simplified the rule by making all sports subject to 11.6.1.
In brief, OP argument is that, prior to 2013, the NCAA recognized a difference between coach scouting and third party scouting. That distinction did not disappear when the NCAA simplified rule 11.6 in 2013.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:15 AM ^
The latest news, as of this moment, is now reporting that:
- The AD paid for, and was aware of, at least some of the scouting expenses, not just Stalions. This appears to be allowed under OP's interpretation of the rules.
- Stalions himself *may* have been at some future opponents' games in person. This seems like it would be illegal even under OP's interpretation of the rules, but no one is reporting this with certainty *yet*.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:17 AM ^
I didn't see the report that the AD paid for and was aware of the scouting. Where did you see that?
October 26th, 2023 at 9:20 AM ^
WaPo.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:00 AM ^
The WaPo article (like almost all reporting on this topic) is very vague and seems almost written purposefully to give an impression that is not explicitly stated. What the WaPo actually stated is that files were stored where some coaches had access, but it does not say that they were accessed or belonged to any coaches. It then said that the files included a budget. This was written to imply that it was a "Michigan Budget," but it could just as well be Stallions personal budget/plan for scouting that he happened to store on a shared folder somewhere. What the article explicitly did not say was that the budget was paid by the AD or even the program.
Either the vagueness was because that was all the "evidence" could show or it was to purposefully leave an impression not supported by the "evidence." No real way of saying which is correct.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:29 AM ^
yeah I'm not sure why the discovery of a budget and schedule all of the sudden means all the coaches knew. It could easily just be Stallions had an excel sheet with total estimated costs and a list of games to go to.
edit: and thinking about it more, this supposed "budget" isn't linked to any Michigan AD accounting line item that I've seen. Nor has it been proven that Stallions actually paid out $15k. He simply made a list of games that he was interested in tickets to, with their prices. There's nothing to suggest he actually purchased tickets to all 40 games this season.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:23 AM ^
Perhaps the biggest irony is that Stalions actually figured out a creative way to remedy the very inequity that the NCAA rule 11.6.1 was designed to address. Maybe it was unfair for the larger programs to be able to scout their future opponents with professional staff in person when the smaller programs lacked the personnel and resources to do the same. But Stalions figured out a dirt cheap way for these smaller schools to scout their future opponents virtually without having to devote staff time and resources to making the trip. ANY program can afford to arrange for local sports fans to record the sidelines or some other parts of their opponents' games on their cell phones in exchange for free tickets, pizza, etc. The network could be vast! From a scouting equity standpoint, this is an example of technology leveling the playing field. If all teams can easily do it, there is no longer any harm done or unfair competitive advantage to be had.
It seems the crux the public scandal here is that Stalions figured out a 21st Century workaround (virtual scouting using fans with their cell phones) for an outdated 20th Century rule, but without telling anyone, in order to gain competitive advantage for Michigan. As Al Borges explained in his conversation with Sam Web, that competitive advantage was likely minimal. But it sounds scandalous that the competitive advantage, however small, was gained through enhanced ability for legal but shady sign stealing. Had he used the same virtual scouting practices to gain competitive advantage for another aspect of the game like punt coverage, then it would sound a lot less scandalous.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:49 AM ^
The smaller schools don't have the same fanbases as schools like Michigan has. But I think it doesn't matter: the smaller schools get paid millions nowadays to travel and get beaten up. One of them can always dream of pulling an App State still.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:46 AM ^
How to live rent free on third base in All Day's head:
- know the rules
- understand the rules
- use the rules
Connor's counterintelligence background led him to try and understand the opponents greatest points of leverage, and their greatest weaknesses. Perhaps inadvertently, we have revealed the true weakness of our opponent.
October 26th, 2023 at 7:49 PM ^
"[...]the true weaknesses of our opponent." FIFY
October 26th, 2023 at 11:44 AM ^
Yes, great post! Exactly correct.
Instead of decrying what Stalions has devised...all programs should simply copy it. Nothing wrong with getting 3rd parties to record opponent games. Recording is not scouting. And the randos doing the recording are not even capable of doing real scouting themselves. Ryan Day is just upset that Michigan gotn a clever edge that he did not think of first.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:27 PM ^
Agreed. I was thinking Michigan should file a proposed rule change or clarification with the NCAA given the controversy. They could provide the legal basis for the practice and assert that the greatest beneficiaries are likely to be the smaller programs.
Plus, the opposite approach of prohibiting the practice would lead to Big Brother levels of surveillance by private citizens of other private citizens. I can see it now: “Hey, why is this dude taking pictures of the dumpsters at the Big House? He must be virtual scouting for the Iowa offense. Call security!”
October 26th, 2023 at 9:02 AM ^
For anyone wondering about Rule 1.11.h, it can be found on page 29 of this PDF:
https://taso.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-NCAA-Football-Rule-Book.pdf
It can't be stated enough that subsection h is under this:
Prohibited Field Equipment
ARTICLE 11. Jurisdiction regarding the presence and location of communication equipment (cameras, sound devices, etc.) within the playing enclosure resides with game management personnel.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:02 AM ^
As much as I wanna believe this to be true. The evidence piling up isn’t in our favor. At this point I stand with the players who put in countless hours in the weight room and sacrificed so much. They don’t deserve this.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:25 AM ^
You are reading the media too much. Most if not all of the media want something exciting to happen (i.e. a REAL scandal). They don't read into the intricacies of the rules or even wait for real evidence. None of this should be playing out in the media, but someone in the NCAA keeps leaking info.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:18 AM ^
Not sure if your interpretation is valid, but let's assume it is for a moment. It would go a long way toward explaining the media circus.
If some asshole paid a third party to snoop on a program and dig up some dirt, and all they found was some very questionable possible breaking of rules, but not at all a slam-dunk case, the natural recourse would be to try and stir up a media circus to shit all over the program in the entirely unaccountable and nuance-less court of public opinion.
Then again, your reading of this could be completely wrong. Having not read the rules myself, I'm not sure either way, but thanks for a bit of optimism!
October 26th, 2023 at 10:32 AM ^
That's almost certainly the case. No matter what rules were broken or who broke them, there is no slam dunk here. And this is just a smear campaign at this point. Negative perception and negative recruiting could be the main goal in and of itself.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:36 AM ^
This is the problem with the gag order imposed by another NCAA bylaw on commenting about investigations. We are already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, and don't have the chance to provide counter-programming such as this excellent OP.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:44 AM ^
I disagree with your interpretation that those prohibited under Rule 1-11-h are limited to those in the team area. It says:
Everyone in the team area, players, substitutes, replaced players, coaches, athletics trainers, cheerleaders, band members, mascots [!], public-address announcers, audio/video/lighting system operators, and other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions.
Thus, those affiliated with the institution -- even if not in the team area -- would be covered. I understand the title of the Rule may help but it is not clear -- I still see gray area for trouble -- would someone we pay for in-person scouting be affiliated with the Michigan? I would think the NCAA says yes.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:31 AM ^
I agree with you that even the student interns would certainly be described as "other persons affiliated with the team", but this is still part of Rule 1 which refers to the game itself, meaning a game that Michigan would be involved in. What this rule would prohibit is a rando with a sideline pass filming the opposing coaches from across the field and then sharing that info with Michigan staff. That's not being alleged by even the most rabid Buckeye honk. So, like any good internet lawyer, I feel confident that Rule 1 doesn't apply to this situation.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:48 AM ^
I've got a few questions on this. If it's straight-up legal to hire third parties to scout in person, then why was a low-level staffer buying tickets in his own name and then transferring them to others? That doesn't seem like something you do if you think this is legal.
And why did Harbaugh issue a denial? If this was legal, then why didn't he just say "We did this because the rules allow it"? And if the rules allow it, why haven't other teams been doing the same?
October 26th, 2023 at 12:21 PM ^
It is not "legal" to hire third parties to scout in person. That is against the rules.
The point is that the rules distinguish between paying someone to go to the game to scout -- illegal and going to game just to video-tape -- which used to be expressly against the rules -- but in 2013 the rules were amended to remove that restriction.
He think he just paid to video-tape -- not scout and provide other analysis.
October 26th, 2023 at 1:05 PM ^
Because - and assuming there are no rules against 3rd party scouting (which is what many of us are saying) - it was this guy's job to coordinate the scouting network so it was pretty much done above-board. It's the media that's making it sound nefarious and illegal.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:19 PM ^
NCAA prosecuting its own by-laws regarding sign-stealing...
October 26th, 2023 at 1:13 PM ^
This is such an awesome analysis. Thank you so much.
October 27th, 2023 at 3:57 PM ^
Yes, programs in fact do purchase recordings of future opponent games.
Now, they are buying the 'all-22' camera angle recording, Sometimes all-22 camera angle does show the sidelines (with future opponent signals), but not always.
In addition, programs use regular television feeds to get future opponents' signals. But, as with all-22 footage, it may not show that for all plays, etc.
So teams are getting recordings that do allow them to try to decipher future opponents' signals, and they are even paying third parties for it.
Every big-time program absolutely has analysts pouring over TV and all-22 recordings with the sole purpose of deciphering their signals.
But...those sources may not always show the signals, or at least might not show them on all plays.
And that is where Stalions decided to devise a way to get recordings that would better and more consistently show opponents' signals--give tickets out to randos and tell them to record the sidelines of future opponents.
As I have explained in numerous posts, once you actually study the NCAA rules, paying for third-party recordings of future opponents is NOT a violation of any current NCAA rule.
Stalions simply did a thing that is allowed in a better way than the competition. He built a better mousetrap.
October 26th, 2023 at 2:11 PM ^
Do programs like Michigan subscribe to services that provide recordings of future opponents, as acknowledged by the published rule rationale?
October 27th, 2023 at 4:01 PM ^
Oops! Posted the answer to your question in the wrong place. Please see just above....
October 28th, 2023 at 2:56 PM ^
Thanks for your reply, I think I get it now. Coaches regularly purchase recordings of their future opponents games, and this activity is allowed.
The recordings available to the coaches for purchase may vary as to the quantity and content of future opponents signs and signals.
Some videos may have very few clear views of signs and signals, like the “all 22”. Others, like a Peacock broadcast, will have more views of the sideline. A fan video available on Youtube Premium may be nothing but sideline shots. As a coach, I might have paid to view each of these recordings, more or less directly.
It would seem the “analysis” of content is what is implied by “scouting”.
It will be interesting to know if any of the recordings purchased by Stalions came with a written analysis or summary of content, like “hey when #26 lines up like this, it tips run”, or “looks like crossed-arms signals bubble screen”.
If Stalions did his own analysis of recordings paid for and sent to him, this activity would seem to be not prohibited. He would have had to do his own thinking about whether that TCU sign means what he thinks it means, and the likelihood that it could be changed or spoofed on gameday.
October 30th, 2023 at 2:43 PM ^
Could not have said it better myself. I hope the Michigan AD will embrace this legal defense. If the NCAA tries to argue that the current Rule 11.6 prohibition in in-person scouting covers paying for recordings....now THAT and argument that seems like a real stretch, very tenuous, and perhaps even frivolous.
October 27th, 2023 at 1:11 PM ^
Hi, All -
This is my first post on the site. I'm no expert, but I am a lawyer and I believe that the rules analysis provided by Ghost of Fritz and Erik_In_Dayton is generally spot on.
With respect to the no-scouting rule of NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, one of the crucial points that Ghost of Fritz has been valiantly trying to hammer home to everyone is that recording is not scouting. There is one point of legislative history supporting this position that I have not seen mentioned anywhere in the forum. So I thought I'd add it here.
Before 2001, Bylaw 11.6.3.1 expressly permitted schools to “obtain videotapes” of a future opponent’s games from a commercial entity “for scouting purposes” subject to a handful of restrictions. One of the restrictions was that the commercial entity “does not analyze the videotape or provide any other services that could be construed as scouting activities.” So here it is in the former rules, clear as day (pardon the pun), that recording is categorically different from scouting.
In 2001, Bylaw 11.6.3.1 was amended to eliminate all but one of the restrictions on obtaining videos of future opponents. (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=197) The only remaining prohibition at that time was against the school paying for the video.
The stated intent and rationale provided by the Bylaw 11 Deregulation Subcommittee for the 2001 amendment were as follows:
Intent: To permit an institution to obtain videotapes of a future opponent's athletics contest, provided no cost is incurred by the institution other than postage costs.
Rationale: This proposal would significantly simplify legislation related to obtaining videotapes of an opponent's contest. If adopted, the proposal would retain the principle that obtaining videotapes would not result in added expenses for an institution and is consistent with Division I deregulation efforts.
As noted elsewhere, Section 11.6 was further amended in 2013 to remove altogether all restrictions related to obtaining videos of future opponents.
October 27th, 2023 at 3:44 PM ^
Many thanks for 4wheeljive for adding this very important additional information. It 100% further buttresses the thesis that Stalions/Michigan have a very strong argument that he/they did not violate any NCAA rule.
The thesis in a nutshell (explained in more detail in my posts in other threads) is that...
1. Stalions did not get third parties to scout. Instead, Stalions merely got third parties to record.
2. NCAA rules have long spoken of and treated 'scouting' as separate and distinct from 'recording.'
3. In-person scouting of future opponents is prohibited.
4. But compensating a 3rd party for a recording/video of a future opponent's game is permitted.
The media and most people posting on various platforms are wrongly treating 'scouting' and 'recording' as the same thing. They are all saying, in essence, 'there is a rule that prohibits in-person scouting of future opponents, and Stalions arranged for 3rd parties to in-person scout...'
But the fact is that the NCAA rules treat scouting and recording as very different things. And only one of these things (in-person scouting) is prohibited. Stalions arranged the thing that NCAA rules allow: recording by 3rd parties.
The additional information provided by 4wheeljive is super helpful because it highlights and underscores the fact that under NCAA rules 'scouting' and 'recording' are different things, and always have been considered to be different things.
How so? 4whelljive points to a previous version (pre-2001 version) of Rule 11.6 (the Rule that is at the center of l'affaire Stalions). And there we see that, as has long been true, the pre-2001 version of Rule 11.6 also treats 'scouting' and 'recording' as different activities.
Then (pre-2001), as later (2001-2013), and indeed now, Rule 11.6 has always and consistently treated 'scouting' as a different sort of activity than 'recording.' Under the current versions of 11.6, in-person scouting is prohibited, but paying 3rd parties for recordings/videos is allowed.
Comments